Purisima vs Salanga (1965) Facts: In the electi election on of Novemb November er 12, 1963, 1963, Amante Amante Pu Puris risima ima and Grego Gregorio rio Cordero ere among the candidates for an! of the three o"ces of Provincial #oard $ember of Ilocos %ur& 'uring the canvass, Purisima noted that the returns from some (recincts, shoed on their face that the ords and )gures for Cordero*s Cordero*s votes had been +obviousl! and manifestl! erased+ and su(erim(osed ith other ords and )gures& he Nacionalista Part! co(ies of the returns for the aforesaid (recincts ere submitted to the board& A discre(anc! of -,./2 votes in favor of Cordero as thereb! found& A re0uest for sus(ension of the canvas as thereu(on made b! Purisima, but as denied b! the board of canvassers on the ground that it as not !et ascertainable if the discre(ancies discre(ancies ould materiall! materiall! aect the result& After After the returns returns had all been read, the result for the o"ce of third and last member of the Provincial #oard shoed Cordero to have garnered 1,4-5 votes more than Purisima& Purisima again called called attention attention to the erasure erasures s and discre( discre(anci ancies es and ased for sus sus(ens (ension ion of canvass 7 for him to have recourse to 8udicial remed!, but as denied b! the board of canvassers ho (roclaimed Cordero the inner, on November 24& n Novemb November er 3., C$:;: C$:;:C, C, u(on u(on (etit (etition ion b! Pu Puris risima ima iss issued ued a reso resolut lution ion on November November 3., annullin annulling g the canvass canvass and (roclam (roclamatio ation, n, as regard regards s Corder Cordero o and Purisima& Purisima then )led in the Cs order of dismissal& In the same case, he also )led a (etition for (reliminar! (reliminar! in8unction to restrain the holding of another canvass& Anne?ed to said (etition ere certi)ed (hotostatic co(ies of the C$:;:C*s co(ies of the returns from the /1 (recincts in 0uestion hich admitted the same discre(ancies& @oever, @oever, alleging that the C$:;:C as about about to order order the canvass resumed, resumed, Purisima came to this Court b! (etition for certiorari ith (reliminar! in8unction& Petitioner ased that the loer court*s order dismissing his (etition for recount be set set asid aside e and and that that the the Comm Commis issi sion on on :lec :lecti tion ons s be en8o en8oin ined ed from from orde orderi ring ng resum(tion of the canvass until after the 8udicial recount&
Issue: N the re0uisites for 8udicial recount under %ec 163 ere met& Held: YES. In dismissing the (etition for recount, res(ondent Budge stated that some some of the the re0ui re0uisit sites es ere ere not not (rese (resent, nt, namel! namel! )rst, )rst, that that it a((ea a((ears rs to the
(rovincial board of canvassers that a discre(anc! e?istsD second, that said discre(anc! is beteen the co(! submitted to the board and another authentic co(! thereofD third, that said authentic co(! must also be submitted to the board&
correctness of said returns as ell as of ascertaining that the! reFect the ill of the (eo(le& Notes: The requisites for judicial recount are set forth in Section 163 of the Revised Election Code: When statements of precinct are contradictor! " #n case it appears to the provincial $oard of canvassers that another cop or other authentic copies of the statement from an election precinct su$mitted to the $oard %ive to a candidate a di&erent num$er of votes and the di&erence a&ects the result of the election' the Court of (irst #nstance of the province' upon motion of the $oard or of an candidate a&ected' ma proceed to recount the votes cast in the precinct for the sole purpose of determinin% )hich is the true statement or )hich is the true result of the count of the votes cast in said precinct for the o*ce in question! Notice of such proceedin% shall $e %iven to all candidates a&ected!
